1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's cause of action is as follows. A.

The defendant and the non-party C lent 100 million won from the plaintiff in early 2011.

After that, on March 31, 201, they deposited 50 million won in March 31, 201 and 50 million won in August 1, 201, and recovered the loan certificate.

B. On September 8, 2011, these agreed to set forth 15,000,000 won and pay interest, when arranging a monetary relationship, including interest on 100 million won.

C. After that, the Defendant and C lent 50 million won on November 10, 201.

At the time, the Plaintiff was above B.

Of the interest stated in the subsection, 5 million won was deducted and 45 million won was remitted to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant.

Meanwhile, the Defendant and C remitted total of KRW 26 million to the Plaintiff from June 15, 2012 to October 23, 2012.

Of the above transfers, 20 million won was interest during the period, and 6 million won was appropriated as part of the principal.

E. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 44,00,00 not repaid among the loans extended on November 10, 201, and KRW 2,200,000 per annum from April 1, 201 to April 2, 2013, calculated at the rate of 5% per annum for KRW 46,20,000 and KRW 44,00,000 among them, calculated at the rate of KRW 46,20,00 per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the day of complete payment.

2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff remitted KRW 45,00,000 to the account under the name of the defendant on November 10, 201.

Furthermore, the defendant's above A.

As seen in this subsection, after the collection of the previous loan certificate related to the debt of the previous loan, the interest was confirmed on September 8, 201 and the payment promise was made.

On November 10, 201, we examine the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff.

Although there are evidence evidence No. 2 and No. 3 to support the plaintiff's above assertion, it is nothing more than written by C, and it cannot be used as evidence for the defendant's claim. The plaintiff's above assertion can be acknowledged otherwise.